The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
Author: Stuart Loh
Universal Music Group (“UMG”) sued Veoh Networks, Inc. (“Veoh”), an Internet-based service that allows users to share videos online, for copyright infringement. In the present proceedings, UMG moved for partial summary judgment that Veoh was not entitled to protection under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), a safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act designed to shield a service provider from liability arising from infringing conduct occurring “by reason of storage at the direction of the user.” In addition to storing videos uploaded by users, Veoh engaged in other activities (e.g., converting the format of the videos) to provide other users with access to them. UMG argued that because those other activities do not actually constitute storage, Veoh may not rely on § 512(c) as a shield to liability. The court denied UMG’s motion and rejected UMG’s narrow interpretation of the phrase “by reason of,” holding that such an interpretation was not consistent with its common meaning and that it would undermine the ability of § 512(c) to shield service providers from liability if they did anything with user-uploaded materials other than store it untouched. Instead, the court held that § 512(c) covers Veoh’s activities because they were designed to facilitate access to user-stored content.
Author: José Mauro Decoussau Machado
Io produces, markets, and distributes adult entertainment products. In its lawsuit against Veoh, it maintained that a variety of its copyrighted videos had been uploaded and viewed on veoh.com without prior authorization. Io did not inform Veoh of the presence of the allegedly infringing files in its systems prior to bringing an action. Coincidently, Veoh had already independently decided to no longer permit adult content on its website, such that no disputed material was accessible on veoh.com by the time the suit was actually filed.
These comments were prepared and submitted in response to the U.S. Copyright Office's November 8, 2016 Notice of Inquiry requesting additional public comment on the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions in Section 512 of Title 17
These comments were prepared and submitted in response to the U.S. Copyright Office's December 31, 2015 Notice and Request for Public Comment on the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions in Section 512 of Title 17.
The European Union and the United States are about to give us some idea of how their negotiations over the Safe Harbor dispute are going. The European Court of Justice ruled that the Safe Harbor arrangement — a critical bridge for e-commerce firms and other businesses that need to move personal information across the Atlantic — was invalid, because it did not protect European citizens against U.S. surveillance. Companies like Facebook and Google are waiting with some trepidation to find out, since a collapse of negotiations might have very serious implications for their business model.
There's a widening transatlantic divide regarding privacy rights that needs to be bridged – and soon.
But instead of coming up with another version of the data transfer agreement between the US and European Union known as Safe Harbor, we need a new set of global standards to build a common vision of privacy rights in the Digital Age.
Two months ago, the European Court of Justice issued a ruling that effectively invalidated the Safe Harbor arrangement, an agreement that big U.S. multinationals and e-commerce firms use to move personal information across the Atlantic. The court’s ruling was largely motivated by the threat that U.S. surveillance undermined the privacy rights of European citizens.
Last October, the European Court of Justice struck down the Safe Harbor agreement, a 15-year-old transatlantic arrangement that permitted U.S. companies to transfer data, such as people’s Google-search histories, outside the EU.
In a move that could cost the EU up to 1.3 percent of its gross domestic product, according to the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, on Oct. 6 the European Court of Justice invalidated the 15-year old EU-US Safe Harbor Agreement in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, causing some consternation among the more than 5,000 European and U.S. firms that rely on the Agreement to transfer EU data to U.S. servers.
The European Court of Justice, Europe’s highest court, has just shot down the Safe Harbor, an arrangement between the European Union and the United States allowing for the transfer of personal data, in a case against Facebook. This has the potential to transform arguments between the E.U. and United States over privacy and surveillance. The decision is complex, and lawyers will be arguing over its more subtle implications for years.
The Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice, the European Union’s closest equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court, has just made a key finding in a court case involving Facebook. If the court follows his recommendation – which it does 80 percent of the time – either the U.S. will have to change its laws on surveillance or companies like Facebook and Google will find their European business models undermined.
This time, it’s not Facebook’s fault
"The dominating feature of coverage of GDPR has been its provisions for sanctions – allowing the data police to issue fines of up to 4 per cent of global turnover. Tene said: “Just having those sanctions and the toolbox is a game changer. Actually, they could just keep the data protection directive, add the sanctions, and it would have significant impact.”"
"Industry professionals warn of the economic consequences that the lack of certainty involving data sharing agreements could create. International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Vice President of Research and Education Omer Tene said the debate involving these agreements will “cast doubt on the viability of the existing framework and foments an extended period of uncertainty and risk for businesses in the US and EU.”"
"“We'll need to see how it plays out with U.S. law,” says Omer Tene, VP of research and education at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), who, as a U.S. lawyer, is eager to review the text carefully to “reflect on how the paradigm shifted compared to the Safe Harbor.”"
""We haven't seen the solution. We only heard very high-level principles by the European Commission and some data that was added by the Department of Commerce, but we need to see the actual documentation to understand exactly what this entails," said Omer Tene, VP of research and education at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), in an interview."
"Many of the most important developments have had a Eurocentric flavor to them. For instance, the European Court of Justice in October 2015 struck down the European Commission's Safe Harbour Decision that had declared the data exchange framework established between the U.S. and Europe as secure. Albert Gidari, Director of Privacy at Stanford University Law School's Center for Internet and Society, called the decision a “watershed moment” because it “largely invalidated Safe Harbor data transfers to the U.S.
"Omer Tene, vice president of research and education at the International Association of Privacy, told SCMagazine.com that the Safe Harbour decision would mainly affect CISA's Judicial redress Act, which would provide citizens of major U.S. allies a course of redress regarding information shared with U.S. law enforcement. "It is very unlikely that this would have passed," Tene said, "and I'm not sure if it would have satisfied the European authorities anyway.""
"But Aleecia McDonald, a privacy expert at Stanford Law School, said the nature of the dispute indicates an overarching political solution might not be as forthcoming as businesses hope because of the dramatically different way the U.S. and EU view the problem.
The U.S. bases its data-collection programs on national security, an issue that can be difficult to compromise around. The European court made its decision using a strict human rights framework, Ms. McDonald pointed out.
""The big companies have probably been gearing up for this for some time, but for smaller companies, this is, I think, a much greater challenge because they don't have the legal sources in house," said Omer Tene, VP-research and education at the International Association of Privacy Professionals.
""I don't think you can solve intelligence and law enforcement debates with economic legislation," Scott said. "I understand why they are doing that. It seems like the only tool in the toolbox that has a chance of working."